You argue that the first person was lax in packing his information instead of carrying it on his person and then you argue that the second person kept too much information on her. You cannot have it both ways.

You argue that the first person was lax in packing his information instead of carrying it on his person and then you argue that the second person kept too much information on her. You cannot have it both ways.

I COMMAND YOU TO BE SILENT, FEMALE BIOLOGICAL ENTITY 001. THIS IS YOUR NAME HENCEFORTH! STFU!!!

In my opinion terrorists are not the perfect soldier. I honestly believe they got sloppy in these two incidents. At the end of the Afghan war to free them from Soviet rule Ossama did attack the Soviets, this convincing the main body of the CIA that he was ok. In the clandestine world of war and in conventional war the most trusted people are the ones that prove themselves with blood. ie killing the enemy. Now think this enemy is suicidal and why wouldn't they kill a few allies to prove themselves.

Ossama did attack the Soviets but only at the end when victory was already certain. In this dooping the main body of the CIA.

The shinning light is that a handful of people saw through this and convinced enough people to play it smart and check on some things. This put the right people on a couple planes and they spent their lives to save others.

Very interesting that Mohamed Atta would check luggage with such important information inside.

Why not carry it aboard the plane?

Why carry it at all unless it was intentionally left for the FBI by someone else.

Even more interesting is that he had luggage.

Did he not realize that he was going to be flying a jumbo jet at full speed into the side of a building?

If it was left behind then maybe he intended for it to be found as proof of their intentions, proving it was a terrorist act.

As for this woman terrorist. If you were a terrorist and moving about and feeling paranoid you'd probably keep all your files on you wherever you go. They are like crap spies unable to memorise the important details.

You argue that the first person was lax in packing his information instead of carrying it on his person and then you argue that the second person kept too much information on her. You cannot have it both ways.

In that respect, consider that you are unable to identify good logic from bad logic.

If being careless with your info and being too careful with it are both suspicious then you cannot avoid being suspicious. Terrorists want it to be known that it was their organisation that commited the attack so don't be surprised if the authorities find out pretty quickly.

But the luggage in the 9/11 case, I admit, has further ramifications that need looking at; it would be an odd coincidence if the terrorist's luggage was the ONLY item that didn't make it on to the plane. If most of the luggage hadn't made it on then we could forgive that. If the excuse it didn't get on the plane truly is that there was no time, then that also would be odd IF it is true that the plane had plenty of time before it took off.

But how do we confirm any of this? When all we can do is google and bring up biased websites?

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."